Combe Martin Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 (edited) I'll agree with that one !, I've been asking for 34103 Calstock for ages !, and good for S&D modellers too. Edited March 2, 2015 by Combe Martin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Legend Posted March 2, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 2, 2015 That leaves 2 further speculations. 1) on the Rapido next project teasing thread, one poster suggested that it might be an MN. Something many miles away from Rapidos stamping grounds but who knows, maybe Hornby felt a cold shiver and announced it... 2) Hornby knew Bachmann had no southern steamers in the line up. To calm southern enthusiasts and avoid their rival from taking a panning, they announced the MN to save their rival from such a fate. Ok i will buy one of each variant they do, including 21C1 in very early days and a batch one in BR days, then batch 2 and 3 proving they do all 3 basic tender types to go with it. Looking at past performance, Hornby may not cover all that and indeed 2 variants of the first batch will be fine for me. To date I think Hornby have done the rebuilt MN with one body variant (I think BR was quite consistent in rebuilding them so that would make for a limit) and 2 later batch type tenders (both cut down style). For the WC and BB, there seems to be 3 basic variants for the air smoothed, 1 for the rebuilt (maybe because there are no major variants so to speak) and 4 tender types, mix of sizes, cut down or not. I think it's now clear. All Hornby did was to make an announcement as a spoiler to Bachmanns news. It certainly got people talking about Hornby. I suppose they have been successfully. I still don't view it as gentlemanly conduct . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted March 2, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 2, 2015 I think it's now clear. All Hornby did was to make an announcement as a spoiler to Bachmanns news. It certainly got people talking about Hornby. I suppose they have been successfully. I still don't view it as gentlemanly conduct . More likely a pre-emptive strike so they wouldn't appear to be playing catch-up if Bachmann had announced one. John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thom Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 I think it's now clear. All Hornby did was to make an announcement as a spoiler to Bachmanns news. It certainly got people talking about Hornby. I suppose they have been successfully. I still don't view it as gentlemanly conduct . That would seem it was simply a good business move on their part. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold toboldlygo Posted March 2, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 2, 2015 One observation from the cads Hornby have revealed, they depict 21C1 in her prototype guise prior to entering service. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSpencer Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 (edited) My comments regarding their motivations were slightly tongue in cheek. But it's great news regarding the MN all the same. Edited March 2, 2015 by JSpencer Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Combe Martin Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 (edited) There is perhaps one other explanation. We know that Hornby have been working on their MN for some while from what they have shown plus Graham Muz telling us that he has been helping with it. 'Late in the day' someone normally 'in the know' suddenly tells Hornby that he's heard Bachmann are working on a Southern tender loco and it's not a small one. The obvious assumption because Bachmann have the N gauge MN is they're doing an 00 one. What do Hornby do ?, what would you do ?. Say nothing, and when Hornby's MN comes out in a years time you'r accused of hurredly producing and rushing out a brand new model to spite and beat Bachmann to all the sales (when their's is still 2 years away) and taking advantage of them when they're 'down' and Kader are disorganised. Or do you keep quiet for a couple of weeks till the froth over Bachmann's announcement has died down and then say 'Oh by the way we're also doing one', and then still get accused of jumping on the band waggon because 'we can beat them to it now, we're organised again and theirs is 3 years away'. Or do you announce yours first to give them the chance of withdrawing (afterall neither side wants another duplicate loco) and Bachmann probably havn't got too far with theirs. OK, so we know now that Bachmann weren't working on one, hindsight is a wonderful thing and (it's not in the catalogue) they've said they're not even considering one, but they have just withdrawn from producing an S15. Now I wonder if that's the Southern tender loco that the source 'in the know' had heard about ?, but they're Chinese and not 'au fait' with Southern locos. Edited March 2, 2015 by Combe Martin 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jjb1970 Posted March 2, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 2, 2015 This is just like the Kremlinology of cold war days!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Oldddudders Posted March 2, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 2, 2015 Now I wonder if that's the Southern tender loco that the source 'in the know' had heard about ?, but they're Chinese and not 'au fait' with Southern locos. Eminently plausible, I'd say. But as this thread demonstrates a few pages back, you don't need to be Chinese not to be 'au fait' with Southern locos and their haunts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forester Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 But the fact is Bachmann's presence has pushed Hornby in a direction it may not have otherwise taken: to produce the MN as built, which may not be the most popular form. Looking at the drawings it is a very long series of steps indeed to get from "Widows Peak" to the late wedge cab body necessary to run the original MN with their own rebuilt MNs. I can see it would be easy enough to add a cowl and deflectors but the wedge cab is a major redesign. They ducked that in reverse with the unrebuilt West Country class, so it is clearly difficult. They may have gone for this version to reduce the competition with the late series 2/3 which they felt Bachmann may have announced. Now that Bachmann have denied any interest in the original MN. it leaves a gap at what may be the most sought-after end of the original MN body range. I hope I'm wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyman7 Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 (edited) I really can't work out how the Hornby announcement can be taken as a spoiler for Bachmann's new release announcement. This may come as a shock to some on the RMWeb forum, but model railways are entirely unimportant to 99.9% of the population. For the rest of us, I am sure I am not alone in saying that Hornby's announcement on Saturday did not detract one iota from Bachmann's announcement today. To imply that Bachmann's thunder has somehow been stolen by Hornby implies that coverage of one has detracted from another, whereas internet forums the model railway press etc will give as much coverage to both as they would have had they been announced weeks apart. Edited March 2, 2015 by andyman7 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSpencer Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 The two announcments are quite complementary so no issue from me. I'm still drinking champagne after the announcment of an MN and early batch at that. I had better hurry up and start to assemble that Crownline kit I have had sitting around for nearly 20 years... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil gollin Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 As printed catalogues were given to us today it very much confirms that the MN was not going to part of the range and therefore definitely not pulled as a result of the Hornby announcement. Having spoken to their R&D team today it is not on the cards for a future release in 00 either. . Did they express any possibility that Southern fans having missed out (due to their cancelling their S-15) would get an "extra" loco ? . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Graham_Muz Posted March 2, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 2, 2015 . Did they express any possibility that Southern fans having missed out (due to their cancelling their S-15) would get an "extra" loco ? . Phil In a word.... No ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Budgie Posted March 2, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 2, 2015 I think the time has come to shut up about Bachmann on this thread. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robmcg Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 (edited) I am delighted by the original MN in the first 10 form early cab and so on, and am confident that Hornby will make a good job of what are very complex shapes, also pleased that the King is progressing and quality control is improving notwithstanding poor weathering on my K1.. the model itself is superb. Bachmann appear to me to be consolidating and taking a breather on new investment, while Hornby appear to have several factories now producing fine model engines; A3, N15, M7, T9, Castle, Star and more, all very good. edit, that was posted before the prev post was read... Edited March 2, 2015 by robmcg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dunsignalling Posted March 2, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 2, 2015 But the fact is Bachmann's presence has pushed Hornby in a direction it may not have otherwise taken: to produce the MN as built, which may not be the most popular form. Looking at the drawings it is a very long series of steps indeed to get from "Widows Peak" to the late wedge cab body necessary to run the original MN with their own rebuilt MNs. I can see it would be easy enough to add a cowl and deflectors but the wedge cab is a major redesign. They ducked that in reverse with the unrebuilt West Country class, so it is clearly difficult. They may have gone for this version to reduce the competition with the late series 2/3 which they felt Bachmann may have announced. Now that Bachmann have denied any interest in the original MN. it leaves a gap at what may be the most sought-after end of the original MN body range. I hope I'm wrong. Why would the late Series 2/3 be more sought after than Series 1 in later condition? I'd think the reverse is more likely. The rebuilt models are all (bar one) of Series 2/3 locos and those of us who have bought them would prefer not to be offered the same selection of names all over again. John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium newbryford Posted March 2, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 2, 2015 , but model railways are entirely unimportant to 99.9% of the population. Model Railways are not a matter of life and death - it's more important than that. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forester Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Why would the late Series 2/3 be more sought after than Series 1 in later condition? I'd think the reverse is more likely. The rebuilt models are all (bar one) of Series 2/3 locos and those of us who have bought them would prefer not to be offered the same selection of names all over again. John Sorry. I didn't quite mean that, John. Just that it is further to follow the chain of modifications necessary to produce a final condition BR version from the Hornby as built Series One model promised than it would be to start from an assumed Bachmann series 2/3 model. I agree with your point about the already modelled names but I fear we could end up with the early original cab version of the first series, which although nice would not be appropriate to the cross over period of '57-59 which many of us would like to re-create. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
autocoach Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 I want the original cab. The style and glamour was in the original malachite MN's before the cab was desecrated with a wedge shape. I just wish we could expect an RTR WC with the original cab too. After all there are the Golden Arrow variations of the MN for those whomust have a wedge shaped cab. See http://www.goldenarrow.me.uk/products.htm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Multiple identity account Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 I think the time has come to shut up about Bachmann on this thread. The most sensible post so far.... Thank you Jane. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozexpatriate Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 This is just like the Kremlinology of cold war days!! Not quite, no one is getting skewered with ricin laden umbrella pellets or drinking radioactive tea. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium 7013 Posted March 3, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 3, 2015 (edited) Nothing Bachmann have done 'pushed' Hornby into announcing a MN, so can we shut up about Bachmann and enjoy the unbridled froth about the MN on this thread. There are a myriad of differences we can speculate, pray for etc. to occupy the rest of 2015. Also, Rapido indicated they were scanning their next loco, there are no unrebuilt MNs to scan. Edited March 3, 2015 by 7013 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ed 66 plant Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 ORIGINAL MERCHANT NAVY LOCO DATA.xlsxORIGINAL MERCHANT NAVY LOCOS FITTING THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS.docx Why would the late Series 2/3 be more sought after than Series 1 in later condition? I'd think the reverse is more likely. The rebuilt models are all (bar one) of Series 2/3 locos and those of us who have bought them would prefer not to be offered the same selection of names all over again. John Hi John--I agree that if you want to run both rebuilt and original M.N.s side by side (as I do) you are better doing this via a choice of different locos. My preference would be to run both types over the period 1956-59 and it is easy enough to work this out given all the information previously made available. However for maximum appeal from the wider interested modelling public covering the 30 original locos and their lifespans in that form (the extremes being 1941 to 1959 ) you need to look elsewhere----On average at least 50% of the locos time was spent in later modified form with different cab and standard smoke deflectors,These looked quite different to the later more standardised form.This does not cover the many other mods.involved. Good news indeed that it will finally become available. For my own purposes I attempted to develop a condensed file to assist in the correct choice of loco--the data came from different (more knowledgeable )sources .It may be of interest to some ---- please refer to the attached regards, Ed ps hope I have succeeded with the attachments Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ed 66 plant Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 ps --my choice was based on Bachmann coming out with their OO version of the N gauge model!!! Ed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now